The Albanese government can continue to ignore calls for national independence in foreign policy, or it can start to seriously examine the allegations of complicity, writes Margaret Reynolds.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at a reception in his honor in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Vice President Kamala Harris, Oct. 26, 2023. (State Department, Chuck Kennedy)
By Margaret Reynolds
Pearls and Irritations
Prime ministers are too often monopolised by people telling them what they want to hear. Most political advisers can’t see beyond the latest opinion poll and the Australian bureaucracy has become equally reluctant to offer frank and fearless advice.
It appears that the Attorney General, Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade Departments have each failed to alert the prime minister and his government to the risks inherent in ignoring international law when responding to the Gaza crisis.
However, many members of Australian civil society have indeed urged the federal government to act strongly to uphold humanitarian standards and avoid crimes against humanity. They have demanded the federal government restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and ban arms sales to Israel.
More than 100 non-government organisations have communicated their alarm that Australia could in any way be contributing to the ongoing atrocities being inflicted on the Palestinians.
Since Jan. 27, many Australians have anticipated a public official response to the International Court of Justice interim ruling that a case of genocide against Israel is plausible.
Yet this weight of urgent correspondence and advocacy has failed to alert the prime minister’s staff to Australia’s responsibilities as a signatory of the Genocide Convention.
On Monday, more than 100 Australian lawyers endorsed the referral of Anthony Albanese, together with other members of his government and the Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, to the International Criminal Court as “Accessory to Genocide in Gaza,” alleging political and material support to the Israel government and military over the past five months.
Dutton, center, at a multinational military exercise led by Australia and the U.S. in 2021 at Camp Growl, Queensland. (Trevor Wild, U.S. Army, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)
The 92-page document sets down specific ways in which this allegation can be upheld.
– Freezing of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency amid a humanitarian crisis
– Providing military aid and approving defence exports to Israel
– Ambiguously deploying an Australian military contingent to the region where its location and exact role have not been disclosed
– Permitting Australians to travel to Israel to join the Israeli Defence Force and take part in its attacks on Gaza.
In response, the prime minister has dismissed the referral to the International Criminal Court as “lacking credibility” and it is unsurprising he would go into a defensive denial mode.
However, it would be a brave leader who instead demanded detailed briefings on these allegations from those departments that have failed to respond to the International Court of Justice genocide warning. Furthermore, the prime minister would be wise to seek independent advice from one of several influential Australians who have significant expertise in the field of international humanitarian law.
Regardless of the long-term future of this and comparable allegations against other Western leaders, the Australian government has been given the chance to review its commitment to international law. It can continue to ignore calls for transparency and Australian independence in foreign policy, or it can start to seriously examine why the allegations of complicity have been made.
There is no doubt that many nations are much more actively concerned about the charge of genocide brought against Israel by the South African government. In February more than 50 countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, Japan, Great Britain and Ireland sent official legal delegations to the Hague to present their nations opinions to the International Court of Justice, but Australia was not represented.
In contrast, the Australian government has avoided any detailed public response to its responsibilities as a signatory to the Genocide Convention. Indeed, it has recently twice closed down parliamentary debate that could lead to a comprehensive House of Representatives discussion.
There has been no debate about how Australia may assist in future medical rehabilitation of Palestinians nor how it will contribute to the rebuilding of Gaza. While the foreign minister may refer to a “two state solution” there has been no official announcement that Australia finally recognises the State of Palestine.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Brisbane, Australia, July 2023. (State Department/Chuck Kennedy/Public domain)
Furthermore, the failure of the Australian public service to maintain or prioritise current independent information about the continuing assault in Gaza amounts to negligence. In a recent meeting, Tom White, director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza was advised “the Australian government wanted to be sure UNRWA Gaza aid funding will go to those who need it.”
This bland indeed inhuman statement clearly reflects that there is something seriously wrong with how the government is currently managing its international responsibilities.
Of course, it is embarrassing for the current Australian government to be named as an “accessory to genocide,” but members of Parliament should not be too quick to dismiss the allegation until they have reviewed why and how such a charge could be made.
The Parliament hears too many simplistic speeches giving loyalty to allies who blatantly ignore international law and it’s time our representatives faced this reality.
Australia has a proud record as a founding member of the United Nations, which is responsible for developing international law. So many well-known Australian names have contributed to a great variety of United Nations achievements, yet few parliamentarians speak up for the importance of the international body.
International law is being undermined by governments choosing militarism ahead of the rule of law, so it is imperative that the Australian government and parliament commit to prioritising its international responsibilities. Many Australians will be watching closely, demanding that humanitarian leadership is restored.
Margaret Reynolds is a former councillor and federal minister for local government. She chaired the Advisory Board of the Australian Centre of Excellence in Local Government at the University of Technology, Sydney, 2008-2012. She has a long history in the peace movement starting during the Vietnam War. As a Labor senator she supported the Pine Gap Women’s Peace camp and visited Greenham Common to support anti-nuclear campaigners. She represented Parliamentarians for Global Action at several human rights and peace conferences in the 1990s. After leaving Parliament she taught international relations at the University of Queensland. Margaret is the national president of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
This article is from Pearls and Irritations.
Views expressed in this article and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
It is shocking the number of nations like Australia, the U.S., Britain, etc. that are complicit in this genocide.
I watched Gaddafi’s last speech at the UN and his criticisms were right on and may have led to his extremely brutal murder. However, some member states were listening. The UN and the ICJ as it stands are puppets of the US and founding member states, but South Africa for one, understood what Gaddafi was saying and not only agreed, but is acting on it. Who, in their right mind thinks one state’s objection to a unanimous UN vote is right or just to prevent that vote from passing? UN needs to change or die. It can re-formed by the BRICs nations and any other states who want a vote that counts in world governance and decisions, otherwise, what’s the point. If nations wanted to protest the UN, why don’t they simply withdraw and leave the US sitting alone in an institution that is no longer viable? I suppose nothing is as simple as I think, but we would have a better world if there were only more leaders of courage, intellect, moral clarity, and ethics. None of those kind go to Davos.
From the recent event, ICC became a puppet, but ICJ actually accepted South African case, and reached a decent preliminary conclusion, thus defying the expectation that will deny standing to South Africa on formalist grounds. ICC is energetic in cases from small African countries and Russia, and self-paralyzed in cases about Israel, so it is a puppet like OPCW.
After OPCW and IAEA defied USA/UK on alleged WMDs, USA and allies spend considerable effort to corrupt international organization, we have seen effects, but the mechanisms are hidden in fog, a subject that requires study and action. While “global South” regularly opposes the West in UN assembly votes, on the level of individual countries, or even individual persons representing them, it is highly susceptible to pressure (or bribery) when it comes to select leaders of international organizations like OPCW, ICC or ICJ — we can expect more effort directed at ICJ that disappointed USA, USA pet and USA vassals.
Speaking as an Australian, none of we ordinary people have any idea how the civilian population feels about the Genocide. because, firstly, to form a legitimate opinion one needs access to objective information and 99% of the media in this country is controlled by American Zionist Rupert Murdoch. Secondly, the same media-control prevents us from knowing how others feel.
Online information is shepherded by Microsoft into Sky News, all of whose reporters shriek in outrage about threats to “Israel’s right to defend itself”… presumably from the threat of violence from women and children. There is constant reference to Hamas’ horrific acts of sexual violence but no mention at all of the NY Times sacking of the journalist who fabricated that story. None of it was true.
All but seven of Australia’s politicians have been owned by the US since the 1975 coup d’etat in which the elected government was sacked, and those of today are blackmailed, bribed, and intimidated into total compliance with the White House, Tel Aviv, and the Pentagon. Albanese is a moral and cerebral midget whose prime mentors are Bill Gates and the Tavistock Institute. He has no intellect or imagination of his own and is where he is for that very reason.
Eventually, Australians will clarify their position, revolt, and Albanese and his fellow traitors will hang, but none of us are holding our breath for that day to happen.
Mr. ‘Milquetoast’ Albanese was an inoffensive and ineffectual backbencher for years. He was a political ‘nobody’, the last person most of his party would have imagined as a potential leader, let alone PM!.
Yet, in the wake of previous failed leaders, failed policies and multiple election failures, they chose him as the least contentious member, to lead them and take advantage of the electorate’s disgust at the Coalition to win the election and form a government.
Now he is failing, and will fall – from the top, unless his party wakes up and replaces him with someone better. Someone who will take responsibility and be accountable to the electorate – and push back against the ever increasing bad behaviour of the collective west.
“Many Australians will be . . . . demanding that humanitarian leadership is restored.”
As Australian John Pilger might have said, What humanitarian leadership? The leadership that has overseen the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of “Australia”, and that has enthusiastically taken part in every war waged by the US on the rest of world?
What the Australian PM has learned is that it is quite comfortable to be above the law, as long as he doesn’t have to pay for it. The fundamental problem with very important people who make laws is that they have no courage to enforce those laws or provide a mechanism to have those laws enforced. Yet they sit back, congratulating themselves of the accolades they don’t deserve.
Excellent article.
“In February more than 50 countries… sent official legal delegations to the Hague to present their nations opinions to the International Court of Justice, but Australia was not represented.”
This paragraph perfectly sums up Australia’s role in international affairs: non-existent. It appears that Australia genuinely wants to be ignored by the global community, and seems perfectly comfortable to be seen as an inconsequential vassal-state.
There’s a bizarre attitude of laziness and immaturity that fosters this position. A kind of apathetic resignation that any attempt at international participation was abandoned long ago in favour of zero responsibilities and total surrender of sovereignty.
There are numerous outstanding Australians, such as the author of this piece, but sadly none of them inhabit positions of political influence.
This country suffers from a profound lack of visionary leadership and thus we will never see a strong condemnation of the appalling situation in Palestine, just toothless platitudes.
The fact that Australia is enabling and tacitly supporting Zionist terrorism is both infuriating and sadly unsurprising. This country brings great shame upon itself.
Senator Penelope Wong brings great shame upon herself.
According to the laws of U.S. jurisprudence, the only persons or entities “Above International Law” are the U.S. government and select citizens/people in its ambit!
So much for all the precedents in rulings of “the highest court in the world”, the International Court of Justice.
So far as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom goes, the ‘Showtrial’ of Julian Assange, the most ethical journalist/publisher of them all, is proving to the real people of the world, that it is just another ‘flunkie’ for U.S. Imperial interests.
The USA has incorporated the Genocide Convention into US domestic law through 18 U.S. Code § 1091. We need to find out how to get this law enforced, throught charges against the Biden Administration, whether through Writ of Mandamus, citizens’ arrests, or other law enforcement jurisdictions. The Biden Administration needs to feel the pressure of this law coming at them, now and for the foreseeable furure. Surely protests could incorporate this into their signs, slogans, and actions.
Oh to Joy
Protesters try to bring specific ideas to fruition, by demonstrating publicly, loudly and provocatively – in city streets; their particular ‘special interests’ groups dissatisfaction’s with some specific status quo conditions.
Lawyers try to practice the law as a calling; as they have read and understood it to mean, in getting to where they are occupation wise.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, is a tremendous slogan for protest signs, in any language or culture!
Yet only in harmony can these qualities bring music to the ears, and have any real force against the extant, unbridled global power structures!
Personally, I fret over the too many failed good social ideas in history in the reading I have done, and in pursuit of a deeper philosophical comprehension of where humanity stands today!
Pragmatically bringing ideas to fruition is not my strong suit, so I plead mea culpa for not being more capable in the sphere of pragmatism.
Beethoven/Schiller lyrics
Oh friends, not these sounds
But let us sing more pleasantly
And more joyful ones
Joy (joy), joy (joy)